I happened to notice, while reading through the comments in Al Rodgers' latest diary entry, that some have taken to lashing out at Mr. Rodgers for his diaries supposed trivialization of politics and their encouragement of "groupy-like screams" as if Obama was the Jonas Brothers.
To these critics, with the rather nastiness of their attacks on one who, in my opinion, contributes greatly to DKos, I say, simply, shame on you!
I don't personally know Al Rodgers and he doesn't know me. But, that said, I am pretty happy to be part of a diverse community in which there is room for all sorts of expression of progressive thought and feeling. And when it comes to feeling, I have to say this: Al Rodgers' Eye Candy diaries make me feel really good.
Like many here, I began to take notice of them last fall, post-conventions, when the electoral race between our side, and the dark side of the GOP, began to really take off. As someone who enjoys a good narrative and who is generally stimulated by good visuals, both of which Al's diaries had in spades (as well as good humor), I was really taken with what he had to offer. I tended to share these with others who I felt would also enjoy them, including those people in my life who are rather 'less political' than me. I then, once I recognized what Al Rogers had to offer, eagerly awaited each new entry by him.
As to the supposed "trivial" nature of these diaries, I would argue that they are anything but. As suggested, they offer a grand narrative, something that, in these post-post-modern times, we might think of reclaiming. In this narrative, Barack Obama is clearly the hero. However, really, is that so wrong? For while Obama has sometimes disappointed us activists/progressives with his more moderate and pragmatic impulses and has led us to strongly disagree with, for instance, holding off on criminal investigations of Bushian war crimes, I would argue that in terms of basic character and decency, Obama remains someone for us to support, and strongly.
Further, style, eye candy, cheering and fun have all had a place in American politics, not unlike cheering for a favorite ball club, going back to the beginnings of our republic; there has always been room for both style and substance, as well as for those political figures gifted with the ability to move people; Max Weber, the famous sociologist, called this "charisma," and our president is deeply endowed with this quality, as well as with such related qualities as empathy and the ability to explain his decisions to various audiences.
And so I say, to Al Rodgers' critics, they would forcefully separate style and substance that while of course we should focus on the details of subatantive matters, style matters, too. Obama has got the bully pulpit now. And while the lying Republicans like Gingrich and Limbaugh would claim that our president is an empty usit, simply following the teleprompter, we know that that is simply a projection of the long line of actual empty suits that they have stood behind. No, Obama is a man of both style and of substance. We should embrace this, and we should continue to embrace those diaries, such as the eye candy diaries, thst do this oh so well.
To Al Rodgers, if you happen to read this, I say, simply, thanks and please continue. Your diaries inspire me and give me much pleasure!